Family Law - Marriage as per Christian Religious Rites and Ceremonies - Return of Gold Ornaments and Money [CASE LAW]

Family Law - Marriage between the parties as per Christian religious rites and ceremonies - ₹1 lakh was paid at the time of betrothal - Return of Gold Ornaments and Money - Family Court rejected the claim for return of gold ornaments, but granted a decree for return of ₹1 lakh with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till realisation - It is a practice among the members of the community that money and gold ornaments are given to a bride as parental share. It of course depends upon the socio-economic condition of each and every person - Appeal Dismissed. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU

FRIDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 28TH POUSHA, 1940

Mat.Appeal.No. 733 of 2010

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP 158/2003 of FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA 

APPELLANT / RESPONDENT: 

VARGHESE MATHEW

BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP SRI.MANU SEBASTIAN 

RESPONDENT / PETITIONER: 

SANTHAMMA JOHN

BY ADVS. SRI.JENNIS STEPHEN SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW 

J U D G M E N T

Shaffique, J.

This appeal is filed by the respondent in OP No.158/2003 challenging judgment dated 31/12/2009 of the Family Court, Thiruvalla. The OP has been filed by the respondent herein for return of gold ornaments and money. It is her contention that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 3/3/1992 as per Christian religious rites and ceremonies. One week prior to the marriage, a betrothal ceremony was conducted on 24/2/1992 at the house of the respondent herein during which time ₹1 lakh was paid as her parental share. The money was entrusted to the mother of the appellant. Further, at the time of marriage, she was given 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments which was appropriated by the appellant. On account of matrimonial issues, they started living separately from 9/12/1995 and the respondent along with her minor child had to take shelter at her family house. Claiming back the amount paid as parental share and return of gold ornaments, the Original Petition was filed. 

2. Appellant/respondent denied the allegation. He denied having received any amount and appropriated any of the gold ornaments. 

3. Before the Family Court, four witnesses were examined on the side of the petitioner/wife. A witness CPW1 was examined on behalf of the appellant/husband. The Family Court rejected the claim for return of gold ornaments, but granted a decree for return of ₹1 lakh with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. 

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no evidence to prove payment of ₹1 lakh and the court below erred in granting a decree. 

5. We heard learned counsel for respondent as well who supported the judgment of the Family Court. 

6. It is a practice among the members of the community that money and gold ornaments are given to a bride as parental share. It of course depends upon the socio-economic condition of each and every person. In the case on hand, what we find is that four witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner had clearly spoken about the fact that ₹1 lakh was paid at the time of betrothal. CPW1 who had been examined was the sister of the appellant. The contention of the petitioner/wife was that the money was given to appellant's mother. She was no more at the relevant time. The appellant did not enter the box to deny receipt of the amount. CPW1, sister of the appellant had denied receipt of money. She deposed that while the marriage was being fixed, the arrangement was that PW2 will give her share of immovable property and there would not be any cash payment. But, the Family Court observed that when the property was assigned, the documents would be available and no such document was forthcoming. Further, it was observed that even in the written statement, there was no specific pleading to the effect that any property would be conveyed as parental share. Therefore, from the materials placed on record, the evidence of CPW1 cannot be taken as a proof, whereas the evidence of PW2 to PW4 clearly points out to the fact that ₹1 lakh was paid at the time of betrothal. 

7. In the light of the aforesaid fact situation, we do not find any error being committed by the Family Court in granting a decree for realisation of ₹1 lakh. Though the learned counsel for appellant sought for reduction of interest, interest is granted only at the rate of 7% per annum that too from the date of filing the petition. 

We do not think that any modification is required to be made with reference to the rate of interest. Appeal is therefore dismissed. No costs.